Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, May 31, 2014

The SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Institute (not involved in UFO research) uses radio telescopes in the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) to search for signals from space that indicate alien intelligence. They want tax dollars to fund their research, and made the outlandish promise that they will find extraterrestrial life in the near future so they can get the money.

NASA/JPL-Caltech

There are several reasons for this confidence (or arrogance, or even a con game). These include a great deal on luck, and the presupposition that evolution is a fact (it must have happened "out there"). Naturalistic assumptions are fanciful at best. Perhaps if they increased their membership drive (individual memberships begin at $50 USD), they would not need to make every pay for their evolutionary fantasies.

In hopes of keeping funding flowing, the SETI Institute promised US congresspersons that scientists will find extraterrestrial life in our lifetime.According to Live Science, Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute told a House committee he believes we will find extraterrestrial life “within everyone’s lifetime in this room.” He bases his optimism on three improving technologies: (1) improved robotic searches within our solar system, (2) ability to detect biomarkers on earth-like extrasolar planets (see 4/29/14), and (3) vastly improved surveys for alien signals, searching millions of stars.

Friday, May 30, 2014

When scientists use biomimicry (or "biomimetics", studying nature for the purpose of imitation and application to technology and other purposes), they have the presuppositions of millions of years and evolution. This is self-contradictory; they want to intelligently design products based on what they believe happened through time, chance, random processes, mutations and so on. In addition, evolution and natural selection are given the status of intelligent entities, choosing and designing!To further show self-contradiction, nature was designed by the Creator, but instead, they want to give credit to evolutionism's false pagan deities. Then they have serious flaws in the imitation processes!

Increasing numbers of innovative researchers borrow from biology when they examine and incorporate living systems into man-made designs. We know how man-made designs originate— people design them. But what about living designs? Two recent biomimicry research programs let slip major logic errors when accounting for the origin of the creatures they copy: the seahorse and kangaroo.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Darwin's Cheerleaders want things both ways. On one hand, if a fossil is found and the creature exists today, virtually unchanged after alleged millions of years, it did not need to evolve, so it did not do so. But on the other hand, people will attribute every little change in some critter to evolution, almost as if Darwinian evolution were an irrevocable, irresistible, intelligent power.

morgueFile / earl53

Some species of wasps have larger eyes. Why? Because they needed to evolve them! Larger eyes are proof of evolution. Researcher Michael Sheehan said, "Larger facets in their compound eyes mean better vision, but we found that as these wasps get smaller, they have larger than expected eyes. This demonstrates that they evolved improved acuity relative to size in order to discriminate among different individuals in the colony." But this is fallacious reasoning, which is to be expected with evolutionary presuppositions guiding the interpretation of observations. Other possibilities conveniently ignored are that it may not have anything to do with evolution, simple natural selection — or that the Creator made them that way according to his purpose.

Social paper wasps recognize and remember the individual patterns of one another’s faces. Individual patterns of red, black, yellow, and brown may indicate association with a particular queen or represent relative strength or particular roles in the colony. But whatever the patterns mean, evolutionary biologists believe they are important enough to drive evolution of the facet size in wasp eyes.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

by Cowboy Bob SorensenHere is something ironic. Astrology has the trappings of science, and astrologers contend that it is science, but it is rejected by scientists. On the other hand, psychology does not have much that is consistent to really define it as science (repeatable, testable, observable, predictability, specificity and so on), yet it is considered a science (but not by everybody) — evolutionary science lacks many of the same elements that define a science. If rejection of accountability to God was in the direct criteria to define science, astrology would probably be accepted as a science as well. Like astrology, psychology has a great deal of uncertain predictions that can be plugged into a wide range of possibilities to claim successful results.Modern psychology is generally considered to have had its genesis with Sigmund Freud (a.k.a. Frood-dude). Freud, Jung and others were influenced by Darwinian ideas, and most psychologies are humanistic in their procedures. For the most part, there are several major schools of psychology (among many). Why? Because none of them are completely effective. They have left God out of the equation; you have no soul. Like other secularist beliefs, especially those that have evolutionary thought as foundations, you are a meat machine and a slave to your brain chemistry. (Ironically, atheists, "Humanists", evolutionists and other secularists believe this by default, yet call themselves "freethinkers.") Using materialistic, pragmatic and utilitarian standards, psychologists attempt to use scientific methods to help people. But they cannot effectively treat people.Sigmund Freud's psychotherapy became irrelevant, and today we have psychology that is based on throwing medications at people rather than helping them. They shoot in the dark with medications that seem to alleviate some symptoms, but they really do not fully understand how they work. Often, the medications are harmful. Watch some of the commercials for medications, especially the brain chemistry meds. They seem to say, "This may help you feel better, but you may commit suicide, have a stroke, heart attack, allergic reaction, have other symptoms, need to go off the medication again..."Those commercials and their disclaimers remind me of this one:

I used to be on antidepressants, and felt that they did not do that much good, and have been off them for several years (except for the moderate anti-anxiety pill that I still take). It is odd that I get an antidepressant side-effect from fish oil capsules (that I take for heart health) and from Vitamin D. At one point, the head shrink was wanting to keep doing some mix-n-match and give a "cocktail" (yes, they really use that word) of a combination of medications. I don't go to therapists any longer.

Many psychologists and psychiatrists care about helping people, but they are limited by their evolutionary paradigm and really do not understand how the brain works. By leaving sin, accountability to God, repentance and the spiritual nature of man out of the treatment scheme, they will continue to fail to have fully effective results. With the uncertainties and denial of God, psychology has more in common with astrology than many people think — like evolution.I strongly recommend these articles: "Secular Psychology as Abuse" and "Psychology Struggling to Regain Scientific Image". For the opposite problem, false spirituality with a pretense at biblical counseling in "Theophostic".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Evolutionary timelines are constantly being disrupted by new discoveries. "Paleolithic" cave paintings in Chauvet, France, were troublesome enough by stirring up controversy. Now cave paintings in Spain have made matters worse, throwing a spanner into the works for the ages and skills of ancient humans.

Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / PD

Cave paintings from Chauvet, France, were thought to be the oldest according to radiocarbon dating. The ones in Spain are dated as "older". But that does not fit, because evolutionists insist that humans (Neanderthal or not) were not that advanced yet, but the opposite is true. Once again, evolutionary presuppositions are threatened by evidence — and the evidence comes from their own methodologies. It is far better to accept that humans were created, and created recently. Reality does not threaten biblical creation.

The radiocarbon ‘dating’ of charcoal remains from ancient fires inside Spain’s famous Nerja caves as being around 43,000 years old has sparked debate among paleo-anthropologists. That’s because the charcoal remains were found beside six cave paintings, and presumably of the same age. However, 43,000 years by evolutionary reckoning is ‘too old’ for such paintings. Neandertals are presumed to have lived back then, without any ‘modern humans’ around. This is the first time that cave art has been linked to Neandertals.

Monday, May 26, 2014

You may recall that evolutionary scientists studied selected parts of the genome, and the areas they did not understand were termed "junk" DNA that were useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. Those assumptions are being proved wrong. By not studying things that they ignored because they did not understand them (how scientific is that?), several branches of science were hindered.

In this case, medical science related to heart health has been irregular. Portions of that stuff they wrote off are actually vital. Long non-coding RNAs are finally receiving studies, and some of them play a part in heart health. If scientists had a worldview that included the idea that God designed things for a purpose, this negligence may not have happened.

A new research study has shown that large regions of the human genome, once thought to be useless junk, work to keep your heart functioning properly. When these areas of the genome malfunction, cardiovascular failure is often outcome, showing the importance of every piece of God's handiwork.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

One of the most common problems that creationists have to deal with is how fundamentalist evolutionists rabidly defend their faith, but do not know the science that allegedly supports it. Some will resort to arguments from ignorance ("I've never heard of that, so it must not be correct"), others simply deny what has been said, and often call you a liar. Creationists do not need to apologize that many of us have a better handle on science trends (and the fallacious assertions with them) than the people who think we are uninformed. It would be helpful if evolutionists admitted that they lived by faith, not by sight.

They need to accept some facts despite their faulty worldview: The earth is not billions of years old, evolutionary explanations fail, recent creation with a global Flood best explains scientific evidence. Then they would be on the way to becoming both intellectually and spiritually satisfied.

* Soft Tissue Deniers / Science Deniers: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams list the soft tissue deniers, aka the science deniers, among leading evolutionists, media outlets, and anti-creation websites.* RSR's List of Soft Tissue Deniers (and Doubters): This brief representative list documents the evolutionist science deniers and doubters for this specific topic. We'll occasionally update it and if any of these popular evolutionists sends a retraction or clarification to RSR, we'll note it here.After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutions. (Further, as of April 2014, the existence of dinosaur soft tissue, likely the greatest paleobiology discovery ever, remains virtually unknown to the general public as anyone can extrapolate by asking a few dozen people. RSR is working toward educating the public through radio shows, websites, and by presenting the information in easy-to-use formats.)Soft tissue deniers (and such science doubters) include:

Friday, May 23, 2014

The title of this article was inspired by a someone's post. It said to take the title of a book you had read and add, "with a chainsaw". I was just finishing up Refuting Compromise and realized that this addition to the title fit quite well. Perhaps Dr. Sarfati will forgive me for adding to his words and not rebuke me, making me a liar (Proverbs 30.6). But enough of my strange sense of humor.Refuting Compromise was written to deal with the bad apologetics of Dr. Hugh Ross, a "progressive creationist" (who also calls himself by the odd title of "day-age creationist"), and unfortunately, many people look up to Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" organization. When I purchased this book, it was because I felt that I needed it for reference, even though I had not dealt all that much with
Rossites or spent time with Ross' teachings. It turns out that whether
or not someone has even heard of Hugh Ross before, there is a great deal
of useful material here in science and theology.

Unfortunately, Ross says many things that are incorrect. Also, he tends to attack young earth creationists (YECs). Rossites also join in on the attack (I wrote about an encounter with one in an older article). Some Christians think Ross helps them learn to defend the faith, but they may be humiliated when they encounter people with a better understanding of the subjects than what they learned from his organization. Therefore, this book is written primarily for Christians, but unbelievers who want to examine the science aspects can learn from it as well. Refuting Compromise is not a book of fluff. People who read
captioned pictures and short paragraphs on social media will have to get
used to doing some actual reading and thinking again.Something needs to be stated quite clearly here. Atheopaths, anti-creationists and old earth creationists (OECs) have been known to misrepresent biblical creationists by saying that we require belief in a literal six-day creation for salvation. That is definitely untrue. We are not saying that Hugh Ross and other OECs are not Christians, and I am unaware of any major biblical creation science ministry that holds that view. However, I will state that OECs' understanding of Scripture, and commitment to its authority, are in question.There are twelve chapters that deal with some very in-depth material. Dr. Sarfati is a scientist himself, but also had assistance from other scientists and theologians. Refuting Compromise is supported by a great deal of reference material (for instance, Chapter 5 has 161 notes).Although I cannot do them justice without making this article excessively long, here are some points in the twelve chapters.Chapter 1: The Authority of ScriptureFor Christians, the authority and sufficiency of Scripture are vital. Dr. Ross has stated that he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but he interprets it according to a "framework" and adds that "nature" is a 67th book of Scripture, which equates natural revelation with the special revelation of the written Word of God. From here, Ross uses atheistic interpretations of scientific data and imposes them on the Bible. A very important part of this chapter is an explanation of the "magisterial versus ministerial" use of science.Chapter 2: The Days of CreationThe previous chapter showed the importance of Scripture over science. Here, we have biblical reasons to believe in literal creation days. This chapter tells why the Hebrew word "yom" (יוֹם)means a literal day in the creation week, and the importance of the structure of the wording about the creation week. Dr. Sarfati cites scholars to support this, and shows some odd theology from Ross who attempts to justify making the days into long periods of time. Possible objections to יוֹם meaning day are dealt with, as are other views of Genesis (such as the "Framework Hypothesis", Genesis simply being a polemic against paganism, and so on). If someone wants to believe that "day" is not meant to be literal, they cannot have biblical, linguistic or scholarly support.Chapter 3: The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11Hugh Ross and others assert that biblical creationism (or YEC) is a new phenomenon, and not supported by church history. That is false. (Some people may believe this view because of the compromises by the church in matters of evolution and uniformitarianism from the 1800s.) The writings of Ross' sources are examined in detail. He cites several church fathers to support his claims, but they do not support him at all! Dr. Sarfati gives attention to the medieval writer and later conservative exegesis as well.Chapter 4: The Order of CreationQuite often, I encounter people who say that evolution and the Bible are not in conflict. However, they seem ignorant of what the Bible actually says, or perhaps they do not believe it. Ross tries to wedge Scripture into "deep time", and some of his statements may cause people to say, "Huh?" One of the biggest stumbling blocks for people who want to harmonize evolution with creation is that there was light, but the sun was not created until the fourth day. (Note for Christians: We do not need the sun for light, and we will not have it at the end, see Revelation 21.23-25.)It is not possible to harmonize evolution and uniformitarianism with the days of creation in Genesis.Chapter 5: The Big Bang and AstronomySimilar to harmonizing Genesis with evolution and uniformitarianism, Hugh Ross and others believe that the Big Bang is compatible with the Bible. (Since Ross is an astronomer, it is fitting that Dr. Sarfati gave some in-depth analysis to this.) Many evolutionists assert that the Big Bang is a scientific fact and that it even disproves Genesis. They are actually ignorant of their own belief system, since the Big Bang has serious problems. Evidence for the Big Bang is examined, and people who like the maths will have some exercise if they want it. Scientific problems with the Big Bang and solar system formation are also dealt with.Chapter 6: The Origin of Death and SufferingRoss and other compromisers have serious contradictions with Scripture when it comes to death and suffering. Evolutionists cannot account for pain, suffering and death except in a materialistic, pragmatic worldview that is inadequate. The Bible tells us plainly that everything was created "very good", and that death entered when Adam sinned. The idea that Adam's sin only brought spiritual death is covered, as are consequences of the Curse and the Fall. Getting in to the Hebrew, Dr. Sarfati covers the objections of plant death, disease, pathogens and carnivory. This chapter is important for Christians to read because it impacts our apologetics.Chapter 7: The Created KindsOne of Hugh Ross' beliefs is an embarrassment to creationists. He believes in the fixity of species; speciation has ceased because God stopped creating. This goes against observable science and has nothing to do with the Bible. More importantly, though, are the biblical "kinds". The definition of "kinds" is often disputed, and atheopaths love to mock it (even though the word "species" did not even exist for thousands of years, and the exact definition of "species" is controversial). This chapter discusses the difference between "species" and "kind", and the various equivocations on definitions of the word "evolution". Mutations and information are covered, as well as a strange "Theory of Speciation" that Ross has proposed. Worse for Ross, "The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/dispersion model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species" (p. 233). If you like to study biology, DNA, genetics and so forth, you should like this chapter a great deal.Chapter 8: The Global Flood and Noah's ArkAnother Ross view that is compatible with other OECs is that the Genesis Flood was a local event. If a straightforward reading of Scripture is not enough to prove that this is obviously wrong, Dr. Sarfati shows that the Flood was global through the Hebrew text as well as drawing from other scholars. Ironically, some of the scholars that Ross appeals to actually contradict him. Not only does this book give us biblical and historical reasons for believing in the global Flood, but there are scientific reasons as well.Dr. Sarfati examines some of the possible mechanisms for the Flood, and dispenses with some of the "arguments" that Ross has used against it. The pre-Flood word and the Ice Age are also discussed.Chapter 9: The History of MankindWe get an outline of history according to the Bible, and an examination of the often-ridiculed genealogies. Ross misrepresent the genealogies and demonstrates his lack of understanding. People attempt to insert gaps in them, but even if they could be reasonably allowed, gaps would not supply huge amounts of time for the age of the mankind. Longevity, the origin of races, "apemen", hominid fossils and more subjects are covered.Chapter 10: "Biblical" Old-Age ArgumentsMany people like Hugh Ross and his disciples attempt amazing eisegesis in their efforts to make the Bible say that the earth is old. Several of the rationalizations in Scripture are covered, and the Hebrew text is examined as well. I have heard it said that if God had wanted to tell us that creation was old, he did a lousy job of it by using "yom" because there are more appropriate long-age words available. Dr. Sarfati has a section on "vast-age" words that could have been used in Genesis 1.Chapter 11: Science and the Young EarthSince some people reject the eyewitness account of creation (God's revelation to man in the Bible), "deep time" assumptions can be refuted with their own inconsistent methodology. Scientific evidences for a young earth are explained, and anti-creationist responses are dispatched. These include the earth's magnetic field, helium in the rocks, "salt" in the sea, missing supernova remnants, comets, radiohalos, hemoglobin in dinosaur bones and more are covered. It is interesting that since this book was written, additional scientific discoveries have been found that make several of these arguments even stronger.Chapter 12: Refuting Old-Earth ArgumentsThis chapter covers some of the arguments that old earth advocates postulate, and shows how the evidence actually supports a young earth and the Flood when it is understood properly. (I believe it is infuriating to advocates of evolutionism and
uniformitarianism to see their own methods not only used against them,
but that the evidence best supports a much more recent creation than
they want to accept.) We are taught about varves (alternating fine layers in rocks), the idea that there are "too many fossils", biodeposits, fossil forests and others are explained. Radiometric dating is also examined, and how there are key assumptions that must be made. Also, there are inconsistencies in the results of radiometric dating — logically, not all of them can be right. Naturally, there are sections of this chapter that have a great deal of mathematics.

I believe that Dr. Sarfati was fair to Hugh Ross, and gave him credit when he had accurate statements. Unfortunately, much of what Ross, OECs in general and evolutionists cling to is by faith, not by evidence or Scripture. While writing this review, I sent Dr. Sarfati a message and asked if Ross had given any kind of response other than the weak brush-off that he did some years back. Dr. Sarfati said no, and referred me to "False Claims of Hugh Ross".Refuting Compromise is an important book for understanding biblical creation and dealing with both science and Scripture to counter compromisers and scoffers. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati refutes compromise with a chainsaw; this book is a power tool. As I indicated earlier, it is not a piece of fluff. I do not believe many people will understand all of it (I certainly did not), but there is a wealth of material available to educate and edify the Christian, and to inform the honest inquirer. There are indices and the chapters have subheadings, so it will be something you can take off the shelf for reference. My only regret is that Dr. Sarfati is not close by so I can get it autographed.

Disclosure: None. I purchased this book myself, and Dr. Sarfati did not know I was writing a review until I told him about it after it was finished.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Excitement has been raised with the discovery of Kepler-186f, an exoplanet that may be in the "habitable zone". This zone is an area that is the right distance from its star so that it will be neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water to exist. NASA's Kepler space telescope monitors many stars and check them for variations in brightness which may be caused by planetary activity.

Naturally, evolutionists want to speculate that life may be evolving on other worlds. However, the train has to be on the right track before it can even leave the station. That is, before speculating that life may have evolved there, other questions need to be addressed as to a planet's suitability — being in the habitable zone is only the beginning.

Kepler-186f, the fifth planet orbiting an M1-spectral type red dwarf star in the constellation Cygnus, will go down in history as the first earth-sized extrasolar planet discovered in its star’s habitable zone. (An “extrasolar” planet, or “exoplanet,” orbits a star other than our own.) Kepler-186f has a diameter just 10% greater than earth’s, so if it turns out to have a rocky earth-like composition and if it has an atmosphere, there’s a reasonable chance it could have that all-important ingredient for life—water. But does that mean it is inhabited or even habitable? No.

To be in the “habitable zone” means to orbit its star at a distance likely to allow liquid water to exist. Planets in the habitable zone of a star may not be water-friendly or habitable, as evidenced by Venus in our own solar system. And liquid water can occur in places outside a “habitable zone” as evidenced in our own solar system by Saturn’s moon Enceladus and Jupiter’s moon Europa. But when it comes to checking out faraway extrasolar planets, the habitable zone is the most reasonable place to start looking for a watery rocky world like our own. With an orbital period of 130 days, Kepler-186f is closer to its star than we are to ours, but its sun is smaller, fainter, and cooler. Four inner planets, Kepler-186 b, c, d, and e range from 8% to 40% larger than earth. They are too close to their star to be habitable. Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner says, "Of the many planets found thus far, precious few have been in the habitable zones of their respective systems, so this recent discovery is of great significance."

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Proponents of evolution have a great deal of cognitive dissonance and inconsistencies with which to contend. The primary cause is presuppositions based on belief in the "truth" of evolution and billions of years. Not only does actual observed evidence support creation instead of evolution, but they cannot decide what to do about chemical evolution (abiogenesis, the origin of life). Some falsely assert that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, others try to push the problem out into space, and still others will try to bring back the zombie of the discredited Miller-Urey experiment as well as presenting products of their fantasies as actual science. Some people go to great lengths to avoid admitting the truth of the Creator. They should really let the abiogenesis foolishness rest in peace.The featured article today is from Creation-Evolution Headlines, and begins, "There is no coherent origin of life scenario among evolutionists, just a collection of odd possibilities – some bordering on the absurd." You can read the rest of the wild flights of fancy at "Origin of Life Studies Show Signs of Desperation".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

We expect secularists to promote the view that the earth is millions of years old. Unfortunately, many Christians are willing to go along with that view as well. Some of these Christians are active compromisers, accepting the dubious science and bad theology of people like "progressive creationist" Hugh Ross (among others). What is worse is that many of them actively oppose those of us who hold to a biblical creationist view. There are others who just agree with the scientists and liberal theologians because they simply have not bothered to investigate. Oh, we can explain things, but we cannot make people understand them or accept the explanations; their inability (or unwillingness) to understand is not our fault.

freeimages.com / "Mini Rock Landscape" / teslacoils

Many will consider the age of the earth as a fact, even though this "fact" has changed several times. At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, we receive comments like, "...it is proven that the Earth is greater than 6,000 years old. ... Do you understand the Earth is greater than 6,000 years? Kens [sic, meaning Ken Ham's] argument is to bring up some faults of various dating methods. However, did you know that many of these methods can be cross confirmed with other methods and data to come up with a generally 'reliable' result". I do not know if the writer is a Christian or not, nor does it matter in this context. The point is that this was primarily a statement of faith.There are many methods of obtaining an age of the earth, and the ones that do not fit uniformitarian preconceptions of billions of years are rejected. Both secularists and Christians are uninformed about the flaws in secular dating methods and of the many other dating methods about the age of the earth. It is in the best interests of people on both sides of the issue to become better informed about the science behind them — especially the material that creationary scientists present that is often ignored or suppressed by evolutionists. More importantly to Christians is to consider the theological implications of compromising with biased secular views.

Most readers and commenters to this site generally agree with and use CMI’s arguments for refuting evolution. However, whenever articles are published that specifically deal with the age of the earth issue, many Christians seem only too willing to accommodate an old-earth view without really understanding where the idea of millions of years comes from. Why do we think that they don’t understand? Because most times they fail to engage with the actual content of a ‘young-earth’ article, but instead defer to a type of belief that the age of the earth is settled or somehow proven scientifically. In essence, they defer to or trust in scientists who believe this. Suprisingly, they still prefer to do this even after the theological reasons are carefully laid out as to why the millions of years damage the actual Gospel, meaning they actually defer to secular science.In this vein, Paul M. wrote to us (as many did) to comment on Gary Bates’ article An ‘old-earth’ answer provides only problems. Gary’s replies are interspersed below.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1, and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science.

This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God exists (but suppress the truth), understand that the evidence supports creation and refutes evolution, and also know that their worldview fails. Many are so wrapped up in their sin and hatred toward God and his people, they are unable to properly use reason and their thinking leads to futility. In
addition, atheism is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of
human experience, and unable to account for knowledge — atheists ridicule
presuppositional apologetics, which easily shows the absurdity of their
worldviews 3.The anger of atheists toward Christians and creationists is easily seen in the increase in ridicule, stalking, misrepresentation, personal attacks and more. People who dare to question evolution and "climate change" are called "science deniers" 4, which involves not only a straw man 5 but the fallacy of equivocation 6. Meanwhile, evolutionists are resorting to legislation, bad science and outright dishonesty to suppress honest examination of the evidence regarding evolution. Bill Nye the Ideologue Guy made remarks in his debate with Ken "There Is a Book" Ham regarding creation science as "very troubling" to him 7, and others have made similar statements 8 about being "troubled". Why is that "troubling"? Science grows through having the established order challenged and examining evidence. Or are they "troubled" so that they are motivated to take action against creationists?

It is interesting to note that old earth creationists (OECs) and theistic evolutionists (TEs) are compatible with atheists in matters of ridiculing and misrepresenting biblical creationists 9. Those of us who believe the Bible is God's Word and should not be subjected to the magisterial role of science 10 become the object of their derision, but the OECs and TEs are actually useful idiots 11 for the atheopaths.

Again, I believe this is a spiritual problem, since OECs, TEs, atheists, agnostics and others reject the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, they would see that evolution fails, creation science is the best explanation of the observed scientific evidence and that we are accountable to the Creator who is explained in the Bible. They cannot defeat us with science, so they resort to personal attacks and other ways to effectively (or even literally) silence us and "protect science" (read: "protect evolution").FascismHere is the first tricky word. Years ago, I was watching a talk show where the guest was Conservative author and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. A caller said that Limbaugh was a "Fascist". Rush asked the caller if he knew what that word meant, and the caller went around the question. (Limbaugh is a Conservative, and Fascists generally hate Conservatism.) People will often use the word to simply lash out: "No, I will not get out of the road, you Fascist!") The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Fascism as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that
of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" 12. That is a workable but incomplete definition. Political Fascism demands loyalty to the state, detests Christianity (but sometimes tolerates or exploits it), unites the people against a common enemy, utilizes Darwinian principles like survival of the fittest and more 13, 14, 15.PaganismWhat is paganism? This is another word with a variety of meanings. To some, it is any religion that is not Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. Others are more specific, that pagans can be pantheists, worship the ancient false gods and goddesses and so on 16. Fascist views and approaches are not just in politics, as there are elements of both paganism and Fascism in extreme environmentalism 17, and can be seen in the attitudes of the militant atheists. Actually, Fascism has pagan roots, and neo-Fascism sometimes incorporates these elements 18. (There are pagans who dislike and fear Fascism, and Fascists who have no interest in paganism.) It is widely known that Hitler had Norse paganism in his views 19, and is used in modern white supremacy movements 20. So, the word "pagan" can have different meanings to different people.EvolutionThe common mythology is that Charles Darwin read the geology works of Charles Lyell during his journey on the Beagle, and had his "marvelous discovery" of evolution. Actually, evolution is older than Darwin. Not only did he use the works of others (including his grandfather Erasmus 21), but the concept of evolution itself is from ancient pagan religions and philosophies 22, 23. Scientists and the public will treat evolution as if it was some kind of mystical entity — which is a pagan concept 24. No wonder evolution fits into so many pagan New Age philosophies 25!Atheists such as the dishonest Freedom From Religion Foundation are on the march to take away the rights of Christians 26, but they are being opposed by groups like the Freedom From Atheism Foundation (definitely not a Bible-based organization) 27 and others 28. Will they be enough? Fundamentalist atheists and evolutionists are gaining influence. Using the most accurate definitions of Fascism and paganism, these people have a Fascist-style attitude toward both education and legislation. Perhaps their hatred will lead them to violence. But despite the efforts of atheo-fascists, they will ultimately lose. Eternally.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 16, 2014

It has been a puzzler for paleontologists that there is such a wide mix of life forms as a result of the Ice Age. Uniformitarian explanations fail. The problem is compounded because of their presuppositions; the data will not fit. One of their beliefs is that there were several ice ages over a long period of time.Biblical creationists have alternative views that include the Genesis Flood. The data fit a Flood-caused Ice Age model far better than the secular versions.

Disharmonious or nonanalog associations refer to the strange mix of animals and plants from widely different climates or environments in the same sediment. Such associations occurred during the Ice Age in both the northern and southern hemispheres and are the rule and not the exception. Animals that loved the warmth were found at high latitude while animals that loved the cold were found at much lower latitudes. Disharmonious associations apply not only to large mammals, but to other flora as well as to fauna:

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Scientists have been working adding "letters" to the language of the amazingly complex DNA molecule in a bacterium. Even the small steps they have taken have required a great deal of painstaking research. DNA is comprised of four letters, and they have convinced a bacterium to accept two additional letters that are alien to it. The eventual goal is to be able to have it pass along this information, and to trick bacteria into following the new instructions that have been given to it. Genetic engineering, a subject for some scary science fiction movies ("Oh, it's perfectly safe, we have limiting factors built in. Bwahahaha!"), has potential for improving life.

But some people cannot leave real science alone, and must extrapolate backwards to bring in abiogenesis. This is absurd even on the surface. Using educated people, existing organisms with their complex DNA (and not yet as advanced as living cells), science, technology and so on — and then say that the law of biogenesis could be violated by time, chance, mutations and random processes is like reading a book with a lame ending. It's best to use the Book that Bill Nye rejects, the one that has the necessary preconditions of human experience and tells us about the Creator, and drop the evolutionary presumptions.

Can genetic engineers—by building a bacterium that speaks an unearthly tongue—reenact ancient evolution in the laboratory? Have they demonstrated that evolutionary abiogenesis—life from non-life—really happened?Genetic engineering has taken a giant leap forward. Nature reports Floyd Romesberg’s Scripps Research Team has coaxed a bacterium to incorporate a bit of foreign language into its DNA. Though this foreign word means nothing to the bacterium as yet, writing a meaningful instruction using the two new letters is the next step. Once that hurdle is overcome, genetic engineers may rewire microbes to build biological products like pharmaceuticals and biofuels. In so doing they are capitalizing on God’s great biological design seen in all life on earth.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Neanderthals sure have evolved over the years. Proponents of evolution told the world that they were less-evolved than we are, and were therefore unintelligent brutes. As evolution caught up with real science (and substantial assistance from archaeology), it was realized that the differences were rapidly shrinking. They appear to have been good parents, made jewelry and art, buried their dead, made tools, could speak — and were able to breed with other "archaic humans". There is a great deal of evidence that the stupid caveman motif was unjustified.Advances in technology and DNA further reduced the number of differences between Neanderthals and people living today. DNA studies prove that they were human. There are some differences, but evolution has nothing to do with them — humans were created, not evolved. It appears that the answer to differences can be traced to epigenetics.

Recent genome reports show that the Neandertals are essentially fully human, causing scientists to reclassify them as "archaic humans." But what about the apparent subtle differences in anatomy that first caused scientists to claim that Neandertals were a completely different species? It turns out that the answer can be found in epigenetics, according to newly published research.Epigenetics, in the more modern sense, refers to the heritable chemical changes performed by cellular machines to DNA that alter gene function without actually changing the DNA nucleotide code. In the field of genomics, it is more accurately referred to as chromatin modification. Chromatin is the stuff chromosomes are made of which consists of the DNA molecule packaged around proteins called histones. Both the DNA and the histone proteins can be chemically modified to control how genes function and are regulated along the chromosome.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Many of us read superhero comic books as kids. Getting bitten by a radioactive spider, getting caught in an explosion of radioactive materials, receiving a massive dose of radiation could transform people into something extra-human with marvelous powers. Sometimes, they would be born with mutations that would develop into special talents as they grew older.

It doesn't work that way. But hey, the comic book writers were trying to be creative and entertaining (as well as make a living), they were usually not trying to present scientific truths.Most proponents of Darwin's theory learned that natural selection (ironically, it was first proposed by creationist Edward Blyth as a conserving factor) does not lead to evolution. They moved into mutations and genetics. Blasting something with radiation ruins cells, it does not give them additional information. Even successful controlled mutation experiments usually have drawbacks as far as the organism is concerned. No super powers for you! Unfortunately for evolutionists, radiation and mutations will not make a plausible excuse for denying the Creator — and they certainly will not give rise to our "next stage of evolution".

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima; Why are these names associated with fear and foreboding? Because we know the potential dangers, albeit often overstated, of radioactive materials leaking from damaged nuclear power plants. We have read about the disastrous effects they can have on people, crops and stock.
But, isn’t there an upside to this? Surely the believers in evolution should be jumping with glee, hoping for some new mutation that will propel the human race to a new level of evolutionary progress? After all, we know about Spiderman, the Hulk, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the X-men, all of whom fictionally benefited hugely from contact with radioactive materials. Comic strips, movies and other popular publications have entrenched this positive idea of ‘mutants’ being superior to the ‘normal’ in the public mind. The reality, however, is vastly different.

Monday, May 12, 2014

How do you know that something is old? Often, it based on personal experience, culture and reports. Sometimes it is simply relative. That book on the shelf with the yellowed pages from 1916 seems old when compared to current books, but it is not very old to someone who examines biblical manuscripts. The old man hobbling across the street in Kingston, New York is 84 years old, and he looks it, but he does not look "old" to people in some other cultures. (I've been told that I do not look my age, despite my Mark Harmon-like graying hair.) Looking old can be relative as well as subjective, often relying on some kind of standard of measurement.

How does the earth look "old"? How does the universe look "old"? And how does a galaxy look "young", "old" or "mature"? These kinds of things have standards of sorts, but they are based on deep time evolutionary presuppositions. It is expected that people will interpret data according to their worldviews. However when the data persist in resisting and need incredible "explanations" (excuses) and use manipulation to force-fit the data into preconceptions, abandoning the paradigm in favor of something more rational is long overdue. Biblical creationists do not have difficulties with stars and galaxies that "are young but act mature", but they persistently confound evolutionary scientists.

Remote galaxy that should be young looks well-behaved and mature, “truly surprising” astronomers.Using the Herschel Space Telescope, astronomers at Jet Propulsion Laboratory have identified a “young” galaxy that looks mature, according to a JPL press release. Because of lookback time, distant galaxies appear how they looked when they were young. Galaxy S0901 is 10 billion years old, according to distance estimates from gravitational lensing and spectral analysis, which would mean it was quite young when light started its journey toward us. James Rhoads of Arizona State likened it to a 10-year old “acting in unexpectedly mature ways.” Tech Times says the astronomers were “startled” by this galaxy.